Jump to content

Will t$ protect their protectorate?


Critters
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think Roq needs to follow Noctis and take a break from this game. It really seems to be triggering him oh so badly, I do think he is broken.

Also I find it adorable that FR triggers you so badly, and just for your information you know nothing of what FR intended or wanted. Ever. So please do keep your self absorbed psycho babble to yourself

Edited by Alexio15
  • Downvote 3

output11.gif&key=7dd46fc9c31afd4fac113d5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Roquentin said:

On other hand, people are saying why we don't just drop any pretense of justification and just say we're the villain and try to stop us, but that inherently means everyone else no longer has to worry about their own justifications because someone is being the bad guy for them and there isn't going to be someone else to volunteer if we take on everyone. People don't want to lose the moral standing that embracing the villain role entails and tbh, it's not a cartoon, video game, or movie, it's a persistent game so once you cross the line into being malicious purposefully with no real limit,  it'll be with you forever. Stuff from 10 years ago is still brought up even.

 

Precisely. Lamenting that you won't play the villain is just an admission of defeat in my eyes. They know they're incapable of overcoming the obstacles politically without your help, so it would be easier if they didn't have to work for it. Frankly it's exhausting reading people rehash the sins of the past that are in no way connected to this platform. If living in the past is what drives your aspirations here, you've already lost. The past is over, and it isn't coming back. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Comrade Marx said:

Frankly it's exhausting reading people rehash the sins of the past that are in no way connected to this platform. If living in the past is what drives your aspirations here, you've already lost. The past is over, and it isn't coming back. 

If it wasn't for the "noway connected to this platform" bit in there, I had something snarky to say. But I reread it.

But the rest of it brought it back. Telling Roq to not live in the past is... ironic to say the least

When his entire CB for entering the war was ALL about the wrongs done to him in the past. Or Some logs. OR because interests. It changes by day. But the past stays pretty constant.

  • Downvote 1

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

That doesn't make any sense in the context of the conversation going on. But I'll bite.

Please inform me of an alliance who has said one thing and then done another as much as NPO has in the last 3-4 months.

giphy.gif

I mean. Definitely nothing against you personally. Your banter is entertaining and makes me laugh. Probably could be good friends when this is over.

But your government makes me question if they understand the words coming out of their own mouths most of the time.

Here's the issue:  you assume I'm 100% malicious and never say anything in good faith. What's more probable? Shades of gray or the Manichean perspective of "Roq lied to Sisyphus and Sisyphus was angelic throughout the whole thing" ?

Straight up I never agreed to a de facto NAP with TKR/KT/TGH/CoS/etc.  At the time, Sisyphus said even a misfire would count as an expansion reason and there were supposedly some rogue spy ops. My understanding was always it would be tS limiting itself and us covering initially and we could do other stuff if they didn't get countered. The affiliates thing was added after the fact and not all of "affiliates" knew about it. It was just a way for us to get some targets. I didn't realize he had essentially tried to put us under lock and key and I tried to plead the case for expansion, and everyone else saw some wiggle room for expansion or that only tS had really committed to that and the other alliances involved were for expansion or amenable to some sort of compromise. When I made long arguments that I didn't want to repeat what Paragon did in Oktoberfest, I was basically told that I have to listen to him because I lost all these years to people like him and he knew how to win. I exhibited a lot of patience in trying to reach a compromise and most people in that situation would have to told screw off with that line. It was clear to me that he saw us as a junior partner to be !@#$slapped and I was going to have to take the situation into my own hands as I had been completely trapped.

10 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Ohoo! Well Played. lmao. Good strategy.

So this is just one thing I noticed a lot of. NPO gov has lambasted and blasted TKR, CHaoS as a whole, and Kettogg for maintaining miniscule-civil relations with one another without having paper ties. I've had a couple NPO people tell me that "If you have such good relations with someone, you should just have a treaty and get it over with." When I brought up "Then why didn't you just say screw everyone else and keep your paper tie to BK?" I get downvoted. And I never got a real response, I feel. I think the response I got was somewhere along the lines of "We had a backroom deal with people to prevent yada yada yada." What they're shitting on others for is exactly what they are doing/did. NPO maintained good relations with BK, so good, in fact, that they were willing to come to their defense when they thought BK was going to lose the war, without any actual paper ties.

The original t$ thing is another one, and then the new t$ thing is I guess an extension of the first one but still technically a new one.

And I'm with you on not dredging the OWF. If I want to read the same circular argument over and over again, I'll just go make another thread and title it something along the lines of "NPO <Insert generic question here>"

I don't remember saying that personally. I said if they considered themselves to be minispheres and disconnected, then it wasn't the same stuff they claimed to do.

I can give you the response. I made a deal with Partisan and there was some delay in its implementation and the deal was we'd get to do the Knightfall war and I'd do a sphere with him after. It was never I had to hate BK or help the next war be against BK and have them dismantled.  That wasn't the next war plan at all.  Partisan disappeared and then we tried to hammer out an arrangement with his successor and we reached an understanding that if the BK sphere was to be completely dismantled in a war by KETOG/Chaos, we could intervene.  BK was not party to that agreement. The very thing was not to reward a collaboration of KETOG/Chaos.

The fact that we'd prefer BKsphere not falling completely over KERTCHTOGG victory is due to the historical issues and a balance of power argument. The logs told us we'd be in potential danger if BK was locked down and that they were counting on tS to box us in, so when it happened exactly like that, I did what I needed to do. It was a domino falling. The way Chaos was formed was in such a manner where we were pretty upset and tS knew our feelings on Chaos.  They just no longer mattered to them because they wanted to restore their relations with Chaos after Kayser disappeared.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It was a domino falling. The way Chaos was formed was in such a manner where we were pretty upset and tS knew our feelings on Chaos.  They just no longer mattered to them because they wanted to restore their relations with Chaos after Kayser disappeared.

Interesting you're so focused on Chaos now/throughout this war when before this war, it was KETOGG you wanted to hit.

Edited by Nizam Adrienne
  • Upvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Here's the issue is that you assume I'm 100% malicious and never say anything in good faith. What's more probable? Shades of gray or the manichean perspective of "Roq lied to Sisyphus and Sisyphus was angelic throughout the whole thing".

Honestly...

The issue is that everybody sees that the only thing you do is talking your way out of all situations (even avoiding to help your treaty allies).

As I've said before, you have 0 actions to back your words. Literally. You can talk and argue all you want. The fact that you've taken no actions that support your perspective of reality is the truth though.

I am really surprised you have the guts to actually criticize alliances that have proven their intentions and views on politics with honesty, unlike you.

Now, go on and counter me with more words.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

Interesting you're so focused on Chaos now/throughout this war when before this war, it was KETOGG you wanted to hit.

It was originally put up for debate which of the two we would hit in a potential one on one conflict. We eventually decided on KETOG because some people in tS preferred it and we were fine with either. The reason Chaos has received more focus in this due to the information I received  is due to the fact that Sisyphus/Wilhelm was in part against expansion because he wanted to restore his relationship with Manthrax and CoS which he saw as undermined significantly by Kayser. He believed that they would not stick with KETOG long-term and that KETOG could be done at a later date and there would be bad blood the hit on GOB/Guardian triggered.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Here's the issue(.) (It's) that you assume I'm 100% malicious and never say anything in good faith. What's more probable? Shades of gray or the (M)anichean perspective of "Roq lied to Sisyphus and Sisyphus was angelic throughout the whole thing".

I mean. I don't assume anyone is 100% malicious. And I don't believe everyone is 100% innocence. It's just that in this instance, to me personally, your grey is a lot darker than the other greys on the palette.

And this:

3 minutes ago, Ripper said:

Honestly...

The issue is that everybody sees that the only thing you do is talking your way out of all situations (even avoiding to help your treaty allies).

As I've said before, you have 0 actions to back your words. Literally. You can talk and argue all you want. The fact that you've taken no actions that support your perspective of reality is the truth though.

I am really surprised you have the guts to actually criticize alliances that have proven their intentions and views on politics with honesty, unlike you.

Now, go on and counter me with more words.

 

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

If it wasn't for the "noway connected to this platform" bit in there, I had something snarky to say. But I reread it.

But the rest of it brought it back. Telling Roq to not live in the past is... ironic to say the least

When his entire CB for entering the war was ALL about the wrongs done to him in the past. Or Some logs. OR because interests. It changes by day. But the past stays pretty constant.

Sorry but the latter portion of my post was generally directed at the rest of the game, not Roq.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ripper said:

Honestly...

The issue is that everybody sees that the only thing you do is talking your way out of all situations (even avoiding to help your treaty allies).

As I've said before, you have 0 actions to back your words. Literally. You can talk and argue all you want. The fact that you've taken no actions that support your perspective of reality is the truth though.

I am really surprised you have the guts to actually criticize alliances that have proven their intentions and views on politics with honesty, unlike you.

Now, go on and counter me with more words.

The issue is you seem to only want me to do stuff that I see as screwing myself.

For instance, with tS, the treaty has a non-chaining clause and they made a new sphere and had jettisoned us and signed new allies which provided comfort and succor to the enemy in addition to the previous succor rendered to our enemies when they peaced out and trashed us openly to them while we were getting threats of severe consequences and fighting. The people they've protected throughout have been enemy combatants and they put one into the gov of their cadet alliance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roquentin said:

For instance, with tS, the treaty has a non-chaining clause and they made a new sphere and had jettisoned us and signed new allies which provided comfort and succor to the enemy in addition to the previous succor rendered to our enemies when they peaced out and trashed us openly to them while we were getting threats of severe consequences and fighting. The people they've protected throughout have been enemy combatants and they put one into the gov of their cadet alliance. 

On the other hand, it's amazing how you make it look like every alliance, even allies of yours (see t$), are out to get you and they are the bad guys.

This kinda explains why you had to get your Guinea alliance though. If you cannot play with anyone else, you just have to play by yourself, I guess.

What should make you wonder though, is why that's the case. Could it be there is some fault at your part? It's just... peculiar, if you think about it.

38 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Here's the issue:  you assume I'm 100% malicious and never say anything in good faith. What's more probable? Shades of gray or the Manichean perspective of "Roq lied to Sisyphus and Sisyphus was angelic throughout the whole thing" ?

Here is the issue: you assume everyone else is 100% malicious (aka, against your interests) and never say/do anything in good faith. What's more probable? NPO just doing bad politics or the rest of the game just being crazy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ripper said:

On the other hand, it's amazing how you make it look like every alliance, even allies of yours (see t$), are out to get you and they are the bad guys.

This kinda explains why you had to get your Guinea alliance though. If you cannot play with anyone else, you just have to play by yourself, I guess.

What should make you wonder though, is why that's the case. Could it be there is some fault at your part? It's just... peculiar, if you think about it.

Here is the issue: you assume everyone else is 100% malicious (aka, against your interests) and never say/do anything in good faith. What's more probable? NPO just doing bad politics or the rest of the game just being crazy?

Um, it's not bad politics if people see you as a threat and act accordingly.  If they think I'm out to completely kill them off and sit on top of the throne of skulls, I can't really do much about that aspect. See the rhetoric about the TKR hit being an attempt to make NPO the game's hegemon. With the tS example, they're used to being the central figure and we have strong views of our own, so when the FA head suddenly changed, they hoped to assert dominance in the relationship since they thought it had veered off course from what they wanted to do and how they wanted to go about it. The most malicious possibility would be if they only seeked to hold the treaty until BK got rolled and then would feed us to the others, which has been considered as a possibility but I'm not saying it was necessarily the case.

The guinea alliance is a very happy surprise.

We carry a lot of baggage and most people are predisposed to think negatively based on that. There are a lot of past instances of bad faith but I never said everyone else operates on bad faith 24/7. For the most part, our interests aren't coinciding. If we could have some common ground with other people, it'd change, but if we have no common interests/desires, we'll be skeptical. It's also not the rest of the game but a lot of the traditional powerbrokers have been more leery and less amenable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

 With the tS example, they're used to being the central figure and we have strong views of our own, so when the FA head suddenly changed, they hoped to assert dominance in the relationship since they thought it had veered off course from what they wanted to do and how they wanted to go about it.

Like you tried to assert dominance in the relationship first? By making them attack Guardian/GOB so that you would support BK without actually spending resources?

I am sure you got pretty anxious when they actually honored their word and dropped out of the war when you "expanded" the fight beyond that "separate war". It's probably at that time that you started thinking about things like...

9 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

The most malicious possibility would be if they only seeked to hold the treaty until BK got rolled and then would feed us to the others, which has been considered as a possibility but I'm not saying it was necessarily the case.

^ these crazy things.

Honestly, such thoughts just prove how you think. I can only assume that this is something you would actually do, so expect the others to act the same way.

Edit: Wait! Didn't you do exactly that with DB? xD  Or I haven't been following the forums properly?

Edited by Ripper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ripper said:

Like you tried to assert dominance in the relationship first? By making them attack Guardian/GOB so that you would support BK without actually spending resources?

I am sure you got pretty anxious when they actually honored their word and dropped out of the war when you "expanded" the fight towards beyong that "separate war". It's probably at that time that you started thinking about things like...

^ this crazy things.

Honestly, such thoughts just prove how you think. I can only assume that this is something you would actually do, so expect the others to act the same way.

I never forced them to hit those alliances. See here you're just saying something you think is the case that wasn't. We wanted to fight KETOG as originally planned. tS no longer wanted to until the war was over as it would help BK. The GOB/Guardian thing was an initial limited front that wouldn't be helping BK directly and other stuff would happen after that but the premise at first was always based on a counter and not some sort of deal with KERCHTOGG.

They didn't honor their word by dropping out.  Honoring their word is just staying on GOB/Guardian and not expanding themselves. If they made a promise in private to other people that they could control NPO's actions and would drop out if they couldn't then that's a side deal.

It's ultimately my responsibility to consider all the possibilities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

They didn't honor their word by dropping out.  Honoring their word is just staying on GOB/Guardian and not expanding themselves.

They promised that their side (with you included) would not expand the war. You did just that, trying to strong-arm them. And they decided that they wouldn't play your game and dropped out of the war. Simple as that.

4 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

See here you're just saying something you think is the case that wasn't.

Sorry, I won't accept this comment, especially from you. Among all the people I've worked with, you are the last one that has the right to make such a statement.

Edited by Ripper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ripper said:

They promised that their side (with you included) would not expand the war. You did just that, trying to strond-arm them. And they decided that they wouldn't play your game and dropped out of the war. Simple as that.

Sorry, I won't accept this comment, especially from you. Among all the people I've worked with, you are the last one that has the right to make such a statement.

Just not going to bother taking you seriously anymore. They didn't promise that and the affiliates thing was ad hoc.  I would never sign a NAP with KERTCHOGG during  a war.

The statement "You made tS attack GOB/Guardian so you could help BK without expending resources," just is beyond false and I'm pretty sure I've proven I'm willing to expend resources in spades, so you're free to think whatever you want in Ripperland because I'm not going to bother entertaining this.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

The statement "You made tS attack GOB/Guardian so you could help BK without expending resources," just is beyond false and I'm pretty sure I've proven I'm willing to expend resources in spades

Sorry. I forgot to add the part where you didn't want to let the rest of the world know IQ was still a thing, so you tried to throw everyone else in the war first, before joining. My bad!

Edited by Ripper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ripper said:

Sorry. I forgot to add the part where you didn't want to let the rest of the world know IQ was still a thing, so you tried to throw everyone else in the war first, before joining. My bad!

lol

Stuff like this is why it was easy to go with hitting TKR. Thanks for all the encouragement.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

lol

Stuff like this is why it was easy to go with hitting TKR. Thanks for all the encouragement.

I am talking about what your actions have proven. Not about what I believed to be the case pre-war. As I've said and proven with my own actions, I ignored older players' doubts and went ahead with believing you and giving you a chance to prove yourself.

You just fell sort of that. It makes me sad that you find it funny. Kinda proves your whole "no one wants to forget the past/work with us" rhetoric is just a joke for you.

Edited by Ripper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.